The Obama administration is arguing that the Feds have sovereign immunity from any Federal Laws -- in other words, the Federal Government is not required to follow statutes or the constitution. We are apparently continuing fast down the Bush road to a completely independent, unaccountable, all-powerful presidency.

It seems that these days, if you speak ill against Obama (the chosen one), you will be smitten down and piled up upon by anyone that was a fervent disciple during the election or of a democratic leaning.

It is weird, but, while Bush was in office, people criticized him on a constant basis (IMHO, much of it deserved in the last years), but, you didn't risk the vitriol, public shunning and public crucifixion that you seem to get if you speak ill of the Obama administration today.

For those who care, there's an interesting contrarian view here [digg.com], from a former government lawyer.

-------

DOJ and the FISA Lawsuit: The Lawyers are Doing Their Jobby wmtriallawyer

After reading throughout the Netroots some of the concern vis a vis the latest Motion to Dismiss filed by the Department of Justice in the FISA lawsuit, I thought I would give my perspective, as a local government attorney, on what is going on.

Regardless of the context, if you work in government as an attorney, and you litigate (i.e. go to court), the first thing you do if you are sued is to look for a way out of the lawsuit. It's that simple. And there are plenty of immunities available to governments, whether federal, state, or local, to accomplish that goal.

I put the disclaimer up front: I'm no expert on FISA, the current lawsuit, or even all the immunities available to federal government at this point. But I have read the Motion to Dismiss in the case (available here), and I give some of my very basic thoughts below...

[b]Fact #1: This is a civil lawsuit for money damages and/or equitable relief.[/b] Plain and simple, the Plaintiff seeks monetary damages against the Defendants. I.e., you committed a wrong, and the only way to make up for that wrong is pay money. Or in the alternative, it seeks equitable relief -- i.e., an injunction -- to prevent a future wrong.

[b]Fact #2: The Motion to Dismiss was filed by the government Defendants in their official capacity.[/b] Two important points here. First, this is a Motion to Dismiss claims, or in the alternative, for summary judgment. I can tell you as a matter of legal practice, any time a government is sued, there is a Motion to Dismiss filed, primarily to see if you can "knock out" at least some of the claims, or if you get lucky, the whole lawsuit. Second, the "official capacity" part is key. Simply stated, DOJ is moving to dismiss Defendants "The United States of America," "President Barack Obama," "Attorney General Eric Holder," etc. in their official capacity. Official capacity is just like it sounds...you've been sued by virtue of the fact that a. you are a government agency or b. you work for that government agency in some official way.

[b]Fact #3: As a general rule, governments and government official have immunity for acts in their official capacity.[/b] This is nothing new. It is the concept of "sovereign immunity" which has been around for hundreds of years. The general rule is established so that Joe Blow cannot simply "sue the government" for every perceived wrong that government does, because it would not be in the public interest for ALL for the government, as an entity, to have to defend said lawsuits or pay out damages in its official capacity. However, and this is critical, this does NOT mean a Plaintiff can't sue a government employee for wrongful acts committed in the scope of their employment in their personal capacity. Indeed, in the lawsuit at hand, DOJ makes clear that they are filing this Motion for the government Defendants sued in their official capacity, despite the fact that many, many more are sued in their official capacity. Keep in mind, there are immunities available to those in their personal capacity as well, which DOJ also raises. But those immunities are generally not as strong as the immunity provided for those acting in an official capacity.

[b]Fact #4: Asserting a defense in a lawsuit does not in any way equate official government policy.[/b] Trust me on this one. I've had to assert defenses to lawsuits early on in the stages of litigation, as is the case in the FISA lawsuit. And it does NOT mean in any way that it is some sort of policy declaration. It is doing what is necessary to defend my client from the relief sought by the Plaintiff. Plain and simple. And that is especially true at the Motion to Dismiss stage. Indeed, these issues are going to be litigated not only at the t

This is NOT some private client. This is the government and the lawyers themselves exist not to assert any defense they can to win but to represent their clients. Anything done by a government attorney on behalf of the government is by definition policy. If policy says the government was wrong, rolling over is exactly what the government should do.

Even in a private case this is not okay. The lawyer is representative of the defendant and should never present a case on the defendants behalf that is not the position of the defendant!

It isn't win by any means necessary, its win if you have a position and that position is right not merely legally but ethically.

Presenting a defense that isn't at least believed to be true should be grounds to disbar the attorney in question and should bring something akin to perjury on the defendant. That may sound extreme but the consequences of these actions are extreme. First they thwart actual justice. Second in a case like this such action could result in a legal precedent that could haunt our nation for hundreds of years.

I'm not sure if the lawyer ever swears an oath to defend The Constitution, but his client sure has hell did. Lawyers who are aware of an intent to violate the law going forward are obligated to disclose that fact. These lawyers are obligated to make it clear that the government intends to continue infringing our right to petition for redress, and to continue infringing the Fourth Amendment. If they cannot make that clear, they have an obligation -- at least moral if not legal -- to recuse themselves or resign their position.

Dress it up in the beauty of the adversarial legal system all you like, but saying that these lawyers have no obligation to expose the intent to commit treason by their employers is as empty as any tool of a criminal organization claiming he was just doing what he was told.

Will they get convicted for failing to disclose their fore-knowledge of a future crime? Of course not -- they are failing to disclose a future crime that will never be seen as a crime by those who judge crime, because those who judge crime want absolute power just like this President and the one before him (and most of them since the original GW said he didn't want it). But that does not excuse them of their obligation -- it just means that they will not face any punishment for being accessories to treason.

I can remember most of the Hollywood-hating folk telling outspoken actors to GTFO and go to Canada/Europe.

Actually I believe that was directed at the hysterical actors/actresses who claimed they would leave but then failed to actually do so. Any information to the contrary?

Hell, do you really think the 2004 election went the way it did if not for the GOP implying that most Democrats were unpatriotic?

It's always easy to make excuses for being unpopular (see Republicans today). Are you REALLY claiming that you believe that the Republicans won big in 2004 merely because you think "the GOP impl[ied] that most Democrats were unpatriotic." I think you've got to back up that first of all, that actually happened, and second of all, the alleged mere act of claiming somebody is unpatriotic changed votes from Dem to Republican.

For those who don't follow, let me make this easy for you: The term 'flip-flop' existed because Rove & Co. were using it to nail anyone who wished to support the troops but also dissented from the President's edict for fighting terrorism without question.

What utter BS, and just goes to show how you are lacking any and all introspection for your beliefs/party here. The term flip-flop didn't come to characterize Kerry because of "Rove Co" but because of KERRY. Talk about not taking responsibility!

Amazing...as someone who did not vote for Obama, I have to say that I was never that disappointed that he was elected. For one, I wasn't a McCain fan, and secondly, I thought it would mean an end to the tireless squawking about evil BushCo and Cheney. I'm actually still waiting for that... Despite Obama's messages of chance and unity, it seems a lot of people are having trouble moving on!

>>>if you said "87 Billion with no known limit might be unreasonable,"

And now Obama and the Democrats are spending 3000 billion, and yet we're all supposed to smile and act happy about it. Bush's war was bad, but Obama's credit-card spending spree is about 400 times more expensive!

I disagree, there was a time during Bush's presidency where to criticize or question Bush's policy was equated to being an unpatriotic traitor. I'm pretty sure the Dixie Chicks experienced a lot of the vitriol, public shunning and public crucifixion you don't seem to remember anymore.

It's also good to see that this time around, politics seems to be irrelevant to the core debate. The principal credible criticisms of Obama have been coming from ostensibly "liberal" sources (not surprising, since the most die-hard conservatives among us are still caught up in inane mid-decade partisanship - questions of whether the president is a Muslim, or has a valid US birth certificate, or will take away your guns and re-educate you as a socialist). The left wing seems content to substantively criticise "their own" leader, which I think entirely contradicts the GP's assertion that it's dangerous to criticise "the chosen one."

I haven't been optimistic for a while, but that speaks very well for the future of these debates. If the left had let this sort of thing slide and made the vacuous argument that it's OK as long as their own party does it, we'd be back in the bad old days of pointless partisan bickering. This is a far cry from the 2000 election when Republicans everywhere decided recounts of disputed close elections had become spontaneously illegal.

Here [msn.com] is Kevin Bankston, EFF on Olbermann last night. MSNBC is not the mouthpiece of the right wing. Olbermann was about as enthusiastic for Obama as anyone I saw during the campaign.

Here [salon.com] and here [dailykos.com] are some current left wing blogs being very critical of this policy stand as they were when it was Bush's stand. Meanwhile the right wing media like Fox are spreading FUD and holding up Michelle Bachmann as an exemplar. I do understand that Fox has no credibility criticizing this since they were so nakedly in favor of Bush.

Very similar to how the conservative movement was critical of the Bush administration running a very liberal fiscal policy, spending hundreds of billions on nation building and failing to veto a single spending bill.

Questions about Obama's citizenship and links to Islamic religious belief are canards.

Whether or not Obama's deficit spending and involvement in the affairs of private business constitute a step towards socialism or whether he will go along with gun control zealots in the Democratic party are not canards. They represent legitimate criticisms and legitimate fears.

The media, who have been some of the thirstiest consumers of the Obama-aide, have begun to leak very subtle criticisms of him, but only subtle ones, and Obama himself still engages in gross exaggeration of his critics positions (http://www.slate.com/id/2215631/).

It's still fairly early on in his presidency to have too many criticisms of Obama (although his spending is fair game), but in six months or so the "I'm still cleaning up after Bush" won't work.

parent poster replied to a post that also dealt with (private citizen) response to somebody criticizing Obama; that poster arguing that criticizing Bush never led to e.g. the plethora of comments deriding a person's (negative) opinion of Obama (the person, his actions, ideas, or even the government under him).parent poster, in turn, pointed out that we all too soon forget that there were -plenty- of public derisions toward those who were critical of Bush - *especially* just before, during, and shortly after the invasion of Iraq. The Dixie Chicks thing being a prime example because it was in the media -far more- than just some 'nobody' disagreeing with the war and their neighbors labeling them a terrorist sympathizer and yelling at them "if you're not with us, you're against us", "UN-AMERICAN!", etc.

so yeah, no difference in terms of this particular comment thread branch.

Agreed. It started at the top and rolled down hill. There was even a clip of someone who was invested by the feds for making a not so kind comment about Bush at his local gym. He was visited by the nice men in blue suites. Totally out of control and scary as hell to think it could have gotten that far.

I remember the story like it was yesterday. It sent chills down my spine. To say it wasn't the (then) presidents administration pushing the buttons is ridiculous.

Bullshit. The Dixie Chicks have their views and we have ours. BTW, Pelosi says it is un-American to enforce our immigration laws. How does that grab you?

The Dixie Chicks have every right to speak their mind. I have every right to disagree with them and not give them any more money.

I do take offense when Americans go off to France, for example, and criticize our President or our country. All they are doing is selfishly making themselves more important at the expense of the rest of us. Its a kick in the teeth to the brave soldiers risking their lives for our safety.

Pelosi says it is un-American to enforce our immigration laws. How does that grab you?

It "grabs me" that you're misrepresenting what she said. What she actually said [youtube.com] was first that the values of immigrants who struggle to make it in America is in itself part of the American spirit:

"that optimism, that hope, that courage, that determination of immigrants of your families when you arrive here make America more American."

She then asked her audience:

"How then could America say it's okay to send parents of children away? What values system is that? I think it's un-American." Later she added "who in our country would not want to change a policy of kicking in doors in the middle of the night and sending a parent away from their families? It must be stopped."

She is clearly attacking as Un-American the value system that believes kicking in doors at night and separating families is good. If you want to generalize that to "Pelosi says it is un-American to enforce our immigration laws", that's your own business, but it's clearly not what she was saying.

I do take offense when Americans go off to France, for example, and criticize our President or our country. All they are doing is selfishly making themselves more important at the expense of the rest of us. Its a kick in the teeth to the brave soldiers risking their lives for our safety.

You must be pretty damn insecure about your country then. And totally missing what's great about America-- for criticism of America by its own citizens is what makes our country strong- because American can withstand that criticism and also change for the better when appropriate. This country's strength is that it's in a way an "open-source" country (at least when its at its best.) . The more eyeballs who can find flaws and suggest improvements means that its flaws are discovered, debated, and hopefully corrected. It is the national right (and duty) to be critical of this country and speak about how we can be a better people that is one of the many great strengths of America. Self-analysis and criticism of America by Americans anytime, anywhere should be encouraged and celebrated. It is, in fact, the essence of our country of, by, and for the people, and is what our soldiers are fighting for.

1. People enter the country illegally.2. Then then birth US Citizens3. Illegal parents are packed off.4. The baby Citizens are left behind.

Think logically. The solution isn't to quit throwing out the criminals. The solution is to delete the technicality that creates such heartbreaking situations in the first place: birth citizenship. Then you can ship them all back as a family and not have to deal with illegal residents or stranded kids. I think high-profile politicians like Pelosi are being intentionally dense on this issue, because they'd rather do something big and spectacular than a quick, boring solution that makes the problem go away with no power, fame, legacy and re-electability.

Please put your strawmen away before they get burned. The only side that seems to call obama the "chosen one" are republicans. *MOST* Democrats have no illusions that Obama's Wiretapping votes and stance on Afghanistan have been the weak points. It was a hell of a lot better than Stay the Course McCain. So please, worship the guy all you want, but the rest of us will be realistic about what a politician is.

while Bush was in office, people criticized him on a constant basis... you didn't risk the vitriol, public shunning and public crucifixion

That's the funniest part of your post. I believe Phil Donahue lost his job on TV because he wasn't pro-bush/war enough. There were reports of people with Anti-Bush shirts and bumper stickers being pulled over by police. Over the past few weeks, Obama's been called everything from the anti-christ to a fascist, and that's just on Fox news. They seem to be doing just fine.

No. During the Vietnam war, newspapers were really a powerful influence in public policy due to their honesty about the cost of the war.

We're just wrapping up the longest war the US has been involved in since World War 2 and until recently it was illegal to publish pictures of dead soldiers to quell public outrage. Had we seen daily pictures of dead soldiers on TV for seven years, the public acceptance would have been far lower and diminished far faster than it did.

Now, yeah the news is a farce. They split us down the middle every 4 years to turn the nation against one another, simplifying our political decisions into an us versus them, red versus blue game.

Now, the only credible news are the comedians comfortable with criticizing the government by exposing their ridiculous actions.

You think Bush gave a shit about sensitivity to the families of dead soldiers?

Yes. It's clear that he did. He personally wrote a letter to the family of *every* dead soldier, and never talked about that to the press, or used it politically. No president has even been so personally involved with each death. He might not have been in the black sedan with the two soldiers who knocked on the door at each family's house (worst job in the army), but it's clear he counted the cost.

Your zealotry makes you look like a real ass in the face of the facts.

Don't blame the news for pampering to the customers tastes. If the customer wants celebrity gossip to be on the front page, then the customer gets just that.

If you don't want the press to dance to their customers wishes, then make an independent press. How? No idea. Sooner or later everyone has to be paid and will listen to the one doing the paying. Only wives don't follow that golden rule.

Please put your strawmen away before they get burned. The only side that seems to call obama the "chosen one" are republicans.

They may not use the exact phrase "chosen one", but I know quite a few Democrats (even party officials) who compared him to Jesus. "Pontious Pilate was a governor, and Jesus was a community organizer." If that's not a messiah hero-worship complex, I don't know what is.

Your post is hilarious. Just look back at the slashdot comments from the left during the campaign. You're just as bad as Obama himself; say one thing during the campaign and a completely different thing once elected.

And "Stay the Course" McCain? You mean like staying in Iraq for years, continuing bailouts, acting above the law, etc? Glad we didn't get any of that!

Apparently you missed the news that McCain supporters were pulled over by police. Or that Ron Paul supporters are dangerous militia kooks.

I don't think it's a Republican/Democrat thing. When a group comes to power that feels they have been oppressed, the first thing they do is exact revenge. Sometimes that's lopping off heads, sometimes that's making fun of the opposition.

in other words, the Federal Government is not required to follow statutes or the constitution

Anyone here old enough to remember that Newt Gingritch used similar Democrat stupidity (House Bank scandal, House & Senate exempting themselves from following worker safety laws, etc) to sweep into power back in 1994?

I love the immigration debate, its the only thing that ignorant ideologues on both the right and left agree with; we should allow unfettered access to our country to anyone from Latin America (and only Latin America).

The right loves it because it breaks unions, and brings down wages.

The left loves it because it brings in voters, and that whole liberal ideal that all people should be lovely and decked in flowers regardless of real world consequences.

I love Arizona, where most of our citizens are solidly against them being here at all, but our Newspapers (both the right leaning Republic, and the far-left-lunatic-fringe New Times) are all about giving them a carde blanche, as are our two lunatic-right-wing congress critters, and Phoenix' left leaning mayor, and our ex-governor (Napolitano). Her to the point of trying to bar our sheriff from enforcing the law, because illegal immigrants are being "unfairly" arrested.

I don't thing any issue brings out more ideological morons than illegal immigration.

Hell, in my opinion put anyone who knowingly employs an illegal out of business, and give any illegal who reports such a business free citizenship.

My problem is your characterization of it as "the Bush road". This particular "road" stretches back decades, across many administrations and both major political parties.

This "road" belongs to the people that continue to vote for Presidential candidates that follow it. And it really pisses me off that anyone thought Obama was going to be any different. Even his abbreviated voting record demonstrated exactly what he believed.

Obama's only redeeming quality is that he has a talent for reading speeches from a teleprompter. I seriously doubt that he even wrote any of them.

Obama's only redeeming quality is that he has a talent for reading speeches from a teleprompter. I seriously doubt that he even wrote any of them.

You do realize that all high level politicians, 1) read speeches off teleprompters if at all possible, due to its assistance in allowing the speaker to make eye contact with the audience, and, 2) very rarely write their own speeches, don't you?

I keep seeing this "Obama uses a teleprompter" meme over and over again, with the implication that it is somehow new and/or unique to Obama's public speaking. I assure you, it is not.

Don't forget the upcoming gun ban 'to protect Mexico'. From the worst Attorney General in a long time.

He has stated specifically that both the 1st and 2nd amendments should not apply. Way to uphold the law. How the guy was employed as a US Attorney with those motivations is inexplicable- putting him in charge of the DOJ is inexcusable.

The last four AGs I thought: well this is as bad as it gets, can't get any worse. Then look what happened:

It's only disappointing to those naive enough to think a big difference would happen overnight. To the small minority of us who understand how politics work, it is business as usual. The reality is that change only works at the speed of bureaucracy.

It's only disappointing to those naive enough to think a big difference would happen overnight. To the small minority of us who understand how politics work, it is business as usual. The reality is that change only works at the speed of bureaucracy.

There seem to always be 2 responses to every criticism of Obama:

Don't be impatient, these are big changes that take time

These current problems are due to 8 years of Bush policies

Obama even uses them himself. Unfortunately they just don't hold water. If Bush's excessive spending is such a problem, how is spending 3 times as much making an improvement at all? So if Bush left a $700 billion dollar deficit, that makes it okay to expand it to a $1.8 trillion dollar deficit? This just all sounds like childish excuses and finger-pointing to me.

There will be no change. None that will help anyone but the bankers and wallstreet, anyway, while the people of the US are sold down the river.

At the current rate of spending, the US will have a national debt of $23 trillion in 10 years. That's 100% of GDP (assuming there won't be more contraction.

How do you deal with a debt that's 100% of GDP? You can't. Your currency is trash, your economy crashes, and your country is doomed. It may already be too late.

FTFA: "Sad as that is, it's the Department Of Justice's second argument that is the most pernicious. The DOJ claims that the U.S. Government is completely immune from litigation for illegal spying â" that the Government can never be sued for surveillance that violates federal privacy statutes. "

So yes, in a sense that's exactly what Obama and his team are arguing. Arguing that you cannot ever sue the government for breaking a given law sets a precedent that you can't ever sue them for breaking any laws.

Folks, this is what many of us voted for and this is the conclusion of the EFF;

Again, the gulf between Candidate Obama and President Obama is striking. As a candidate, Obama ran promising a new era of government transparency and accountability, an end to the Bush DOJ's radical theories of executive power, and reform of the PATRIOT Act. But, this week, Obama's own Department Of Justice has argued that, under the PATRIOT Act, the government shall be entirely unaccountable for surveilling Americans in violation of its own laws.

It's gratifying to see this issue getting some exposure here. God knows this is not a story that the doting MSM would ever run on its own, without significant blogosphere activity forcing them to acknowledge it.

It's gratifying to see this issue getting some exposure here. God knows this is not a story that the doting MSM would ever run on its own, without significant blogosphere activity forcing them to acknowledge it.

Still, I don't expect even the blogosphere to treat Obama like it treated Bush. Where are the posts comparing Obama to Hitler? Would Stalin be a better comparison? Not that I would agree with either comparison, but I sure read from a whole bunch of people here that would apply Godwin to Bush at the drop of a hat.

Still, I don't expect even the blogosphere to treat Obama like it treated Bush. Where are the posts comparing Obama to Hitler?

Bush had years to build up a reputation. Obama is still in the process of tearing down his original reputation. Give him two years and if he's done anything near what Bush did two years into his first term I think you will see plenty of people making such comparisons.

Still, I don't expect even the blogosphere to treat Obama like it treated Bush. Where are the posts comparing Obama to Hitler?

Bush had years to build up a reputation. Obama is still in the process of tearing down his original reputation. Give him two years and if he's done anything near what Bush did two years into his first term I think you will see plenty of people making such comparisons.

Bush's motorcade was pelted with snowballs on the way to his inauguration [salon.com] while Obama got a party. With the except of a couple of months after 9-11, Bush was pretty much relentlessly attacked by the media, Hollywood elites and blogosphere for all eight years.

The DOJ claims that the U.S. Government is completely immune from litigation for illegal spying -- that the Government can never be sued for surveillance that violates federal privacy statutes...No one -- not the White House, not the Justice Department, not any member of Congress, and not the Bush Administration -- has ever interpreted the law this way.

Wow, nothing like taking things to the next level, huh? I guess Obama brought his A-game.

It's important to note that the DOJ references the PATRIOT Act as justification for this argument. It's a little awkward for the EFF to say

No one -- not the White House, not the Justice Department, not any member of Congress, and not the Bush Administration -- has ever interpreted the law this way.

when we're talking only about a single administration.

Yes, the Obama administration's stance is intolerable. But the problem, I believe, is not the administration -- it is the law. Repeal the PATRIOT Act. Pass a law requiring stricter oversight of government surveillance.

THAT is the answer. Not some mindless, useless "Obama is teh suxxor" bullshit.

Judging the speed with which the Democratically-controlled House and Senate (and Obama, by signing it into law) just spent $1 trillion of our tax money as "stimulus," do you REALLY think the reason the PATRIOT Act can't be repealed, IMMEDIATELY, if the Democrats decide to do so?

"The DOJ claims that the U.S. Government is completely immune from litigation for illegal spying â" that the Government can never be sued for surveillance that violates federal privacy statutes."

Sure, it's a bullshit argument, but the fact that they're actually trying it, reeks of the kind of tactics used to build up the NKVD's influence in post-revolutionary Russia. Putting even one fragment of the government "outside the law" is a very frightening precedent.

This has nothing to do with Obama (other than that his DOJ is making the argument), and it is not a bullshit argument from a legal standpoint.

It's called sovereign immunity [wikipedia.org], and we brought it over to our legal system from the British system when we declared independence. To put it shortly, it's exactly what you quoted: Congress has to waive its immunity in order for you to sue the federal government. There are a few laws on the books outlining cases in which they automatically waive that right. I don't know if this would be one of them, except to say that the DOJ obviously feels there's at least an argument to be made that it isn't.

I agree with what somebody else said in another thread earlier: Sovereign immunity has no place in a democratic society. That said, though, it's here and as frightening as it may be, it's far from a bullshit legal argument to have a lawsuit dismissed. It's a good one.

This is kind of disturbing. I know politicians turn 180 at the drop of a hat but Obama's entire popularity -- and the benefits that come from it -- relies on being anti-Bush. This is a very hot issue. One of the most important ones in fact. For him to continue supporting it is almost political suicide. Yet he's doing it anyway. Which makes you think, what could possibly be so important to keep secret?

We know it has nothing to do with national defense. The crones in Washington have never had a problem with outing CIA agents in the field for political gain.

Do they have illegal records of Dick Cheney torturing kittens or something? Wait, that wouldn't surprise anyone.

Obama voted yes for the telecom immunity bill. He supported the wiretapping program in the Senate, why do you think he'd stop supporting it when he was elected President?

Substance doesn't matter to "Hope And Change" zombies.

Not that it matters much to the "Saddam planned 9/11" crowd, but liberals are supposed to be Sooooo Muuuuch Smarter, Hipper And Rational than Bible-thumping Young Earth Creationist conservatives that you'd think they'd care a smidgen about reality.

*sighs* The Saddam9/11 crowd was never that large a subset of bush supporters.

*sighs*

9/6/2003: WASHINGTON (AP) â" Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe it is likely that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, says a poll out almost two years after the terrorists' strike against this country.

Sixty-nine percent in a Washington Post poll published Saturday said they believe it is likely the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda. A majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents believe it's likely Saddam was involved.

For one thing, under an Obama presidency, Americans will be able to leave behind the era of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and "wiretaps without warrants," he said. (He was referring to the lingering legal fallout over reports that the National Security Agency scooped up Americans' phone and Internet activities without court orders, ostensibly to monitor terrorist plots, in the years after the September 11 attacks.)

It's hardly a new stance for Obama, who has made similar statements in previous campaign speeches, but mention of the issue in a stump speech, alongside more frequently discussed topics like Iraq and education, may give some clue to his priorities.

In our own Technology Voters' Guide, when asked whether he supports shielding telecommunications and Internet companies from lawsuits accusing them of illegal spying, Obama gave us a one-word response: "No."

I gave him the benefit of the doubt because the alternative really didn't leave me much choice.

The alternative was McCain, who at least had a track record of refusing to add earmarks and supporting tax decreases.

The person who has the federal government spend and gather less is the best one to vote for because the more money the government has, the more trouble it can get into. You can't wiretap as many people if you lack the funds...

It's a simple rule to follow and will always serve you well. Note that Bush for example was someone who also spent wildly.

So Bush tried to hide behind state secrets, and now the Dems. They must be both in on whatever it is.

After Bush madness, it seems that the Dems could go on a witch-hunt. Perhaps they don't because they're better than the Rs (think back to clinton's sex life). It seems much more plausible, however, that political MAD (mutually assured destruction) is keeping everything in check. I'm suggesting that the state-secrets would be hideously embarrassing for both Dems and Rs.

This is kind of disturbing. I know politicians turn 180 at the drop of a hat but Obama's entire popularity -- and the benefits that come from it -- relies on being anti-Bush. This is a very hot issue. One of the most important ones in fact. For him to continue supporting it is almost political suicide. Yet he's doing it anyway. Which makes you think, what could possibly be so important to keep secret?

You have to keep in mind that a large percentage of the anti Bush crowd weren't really informed on the issues. They were anti Bush because it was fashionable to anti Bush. All their friends were, all the blogs they read were, much of the other media they were exposed to were. And they went right along with the herd.

Meanwhile, those few of us who (regardless of our personal stance on Bush) tried to explain that the two parties never give up powers and perks gained by the other party were shouted down as 'haters' or ignored as 'irrelevant fossils' or even worse pejoratives. Obama Wasn't Bush - and that was all they needed to know. Those of us who didn't toe the fashion zombie line were cast beyond the pale.

It has nothing to do with anything that must be secret, or national defense, or Cheney, or anything other reason. It's all about the little quid pro quo that goes on in Washington. The two major parties may tear down each others programs - but never the perks and powers, because they want them there when their guy takes the office.

Why not? Should we post all of our military strategies on Facebook, just to ensure transparency? That would just make us vulnerable, and vulnerable democracies get conquered. And we've always had sovereign immunity. We inherited it from other democracies. Without it, we ALL get to pay every time somebody sues the government for damages, and the government would be crippled as the Congress and Executive would have to fight a wave of preliminary injunctions every time they took an action that some minority group doesn't agree with. Yes, both can be abused, and we should hold our elected politicians to the fire when they do so. But the democracy you envision is crippled, weak, and ineffective. A crippled, weak, and ineffective democracy will fail, just as surely as an over-reaching, oppressive, dictatorial democracy.

At this point, the people who railed at me for supporting Nader, for daring to call Obama an opportunist tool of the status quo, can now officially kiss my ass. Those who simply couldn't be bothered to check his Senate voting record but who insisted on wearing that Maoist "Hope" portrait at all times, I say to you today: I told you so.

And as for the EFF, please use well the money I just sent you, and keep up the good fight.

The Obama administration has roughly the same goals as the Bush administration, so it's no surprise that they're continuing to pursue them.

The change, and it is a change, is that they are pursuing them in a smarter way.1) By making this extreme argument, they give judges wiggle-room to reject it and then accept the state secrets argument, while still allowing the judge to make token gestures in favor of the rule of law, even write a long, pious opinion dismissing the second argument while accepting the first. I can see that it would be very easy for any judge to delude himself into believing he was making a Solomonic compromise. Very smart on their part.

2) If the second argument *does* somehow fly, they have carte blanche to do what they want. I suspect that the Bush administration would've argued for the same thing, except that they weren't smart enough to come up with a line of argument that would've passed the laugh test (IANAL, maybe this one doesn't either.)

Begin broken record mode: The only way to get real improvement from Obama (or from Bush, for that matter,) is to mobilize the public to control the government. No elected leader is going to do this for us as a gift, we have to maintain the pressure constantly.

Personally, I'm much more disappointed with his ongoing embrace of "public-private partnerships" in education (crooked self-dealing and cronyism do not focus group so well, so they rebranded them as "public-private partnerships" in which the government partners with a private entity to give it money with minimal oversight and much righteous rhetoric.) My saintly mother blogs about it: http://chemtchr.dailykos.com/ [dailykos.com]

And I'm sure Obama has not delivered from progressives on a dozen other fronts. Only way he will is *if we make him*. In the case of progressive causes that are popular with the public, this should be relatively easy, and ought to benefit the election prospects of the Democratic party anyway, so let's get going.

Read up on it [worldnetdaily.com] if you don't understand it. Just like it took Nixon to go to China, it will take Obama to get this through. Those of you who voted for Obama and really believed that he stood for "hope and change" were every bit as big of morons as the people in the Republican Party who thought that McCain was some maverick conservative.

I distinctly remember, way back when during the Reagan years, people were crowing about how we in the U.S. had it so much better than the Soviets. We didn't have to worry about providing papers to travel (Red October anyone?), we didn't have to worry about our neighbors spying on us and reporting "unpatriotic" deeds, we didn't have to worry about government agents bursting into our homes without a warrant and we especially didn't have to worry about the government listening in on our phone calls.

Now we have two different parts of the government trying to justify why they can, whenever, they feel like it, listen to our phone conversations all in the name of stopping "them" from causing us harm. The worst part about it, the same people who 25 years ago were crowing about how free we were compared to the Soviets are now the same people (assuming they're still alive) who are defending these blatant infringements on our freedoms, all in the name of securing our freedom.

Is that like, "It became necessary to destroy the village in order to save it."?

So it's starting to sound like one of several things is going on here:

Obama is ultimately cut from the same power-hungry mold as Bush, even if he often seeks a different sort of power from his predecessor. This particular case just happens to serve both of their ends, so meet the new boss, same as the old boss. OR...

Bush actually had good reasons to do what he did, and Obama continues these odious policies as a distasteful but very real necessity.

I'm not sure which of these possibilities would worse.

It would help, however, if Obama would be more forthcoming as to the reasons behind the continuation, though; surely some more substantial explanation than "it's all a state secret" can be given without damaging national security.

What does anyone expect from a bloated government bureaucracy that seems to exist for no other reason to protect it's own power.

Conservatives and liberals are both happily sacrificing liberty for security, the only difference being their motivations for doing so. Conservatives generally have a fear of ambiguous foreign threats. Liberals want to be sheltered from the difficulties of life. Both lead to the same end result which is a massive state that regulates every aspect of our lives.

This is not to say there aren't legitimate concerns on both sides of the aisle, because each side is too quick to dismiss the concerns the other side has. Virtually every issue has been so utterly politicized that there's little room for rational discussion. Sometimes I wonder if it isn't intentional so that everyone is weakened by fighting amongst themselves and thus distracted from the real threat. Otherwise how is it that people keep re-electing the same old garbage into office over and over again?

Concepts like probable cause, innocent until proven guilty, checks and balances on government power, government for the people and by the people, restriction on governmental power --- are best described as "quaint"?

I wish the people who want to destroy America would take up arms and revolt -- that's easy enough to put down. Insidiously destructive notions such as yours that fundamental rights for individuals and limits on government power are "quaint", ensures that American principles of government will die out. America may keep the name, but that's it.

the issue is prevent government abuse, right? that's what i am fighting for. that's what i care about. that's what i am trying to do MOST EFFECTIVELY HERE. rather than cling to a notion that has passed its sell-by date

so: transparency, independent review with authority to punish, any and all wiretapping efforts

that's my whole point: technological change HAS made it ridiculously hard. your average al qaeda goon or timothy mcveigh is not calling up his #2 on the rotary phone. they are using skype, they are using a friend's computer one moment, getting an sms text on another friend's cell phone the next moment. do you see that?

the avenues of communication, the protocols, the endpoints: they are ridiculously huge in number, convoluted, and fluid. such that, yes: i am asserting that getting a wiretap first is an antiquated, quaint notion. that no reasonable person can expect anyone to be able to elucidate and enunciate all of the communication avenues of a suspect they ar einterested in beforehand

nevermind the stereotype of senator palpatine or agent smith out to take away all of your rights for the sake of some b-grade hollywood fantasy, i am talking about the well-meaning fbi agent on the trail of a genuine suspect: do you honestly expect him to be aware of all of the terminals of communication and avenues of communication being used by that suspect beforehand? do you really?

the era of the warrant to wiretap has been destroyed

destroyed NOT by some insidious ideology. destroyed by simple technological change

understand me yet? I AM FOR THE FIGHT AGAINST GOVERNMENT ABUSE

i aam simply asking you to recognize that this battle is lost

now mod me into obvlivion and declare me your eternal ideological foe, and completely and utterly miss my point

Under the rules they already had, they can actually apply for a warrant up to (I think) 48 hours after they perform the wire tap. And the success rate in asking for a warrant is somewhere around 100%. Warrantless wiretapping is about being terrified of ever letting even a Federal judge know what's going on, even after the wiretap has been performed.

Here's a refresher for you. I've bolded the important bits: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

You might argue that the Constitution is outdated or wrong, but that's the beauty of it. If it's wrong, we can amend it. (Just like we did for prohibition). To ignore it because it doesn't currently fit in with our needs is a very dangerous road to be on, and not one that my fellow citizens should tolerate in any way.

Your claims that we should accept this and just move on are, frankly, unamerican. In America, we're subject first and foremost to the constitution. We believe that our government gets its power from us, as granted explicitly by the Constitution. Your proposal is utterly unacceptable.

Oh, and since you didn't rtfa, let me spell out the scariest bit of Obama's position on this issue: his adminsitration has taken the position that the federal government is immune from prosecution because of sovereign doctrine. Therefore, they're claiming that you can't sue the government. If that's not opaqueness, I'm not sure what is.